Catharinus and his theory of external intention was discussed throughout the first four pages of this thread.  It's what the argument has been about for almost this entire thread.  Starting on page two, Ladislaus began trying to explain that his theory was not the same as the Catharinus-ian theory of external intention.  But the distinction he made is exactly the same as the explanation of the theory of external intention by those of the school of Catharinus.

Thanks Joe for that explanation, I got in late but to me, the theory, if I understand it correctly from the last 3 or 4 pages, seems like an exercise in futility, at least as far as the +ABL situation goes. 

The title of the thread is: Was Lienart Really a Mason? But what it really seems to be about is to show that Archbishop Lefebvre was not validly ordained, IMO.

Exactly. I mean, what else is +Lienart know for?

But that's NOT what the OP article concludes!  LOL

Good catch....I hadn't noticed that.

At the bottom of the OP article, it says: "To sum up what we have said:

"2) If Cardinal Lienart had been a Freemason, it would not have invalidated the sacraments he conferred."

Everything that Joe Cupertino posted lines up with what Ladislaus has been saying (and has said many times in the past) and does not support what De Lugo has been implying.  Either De Lugo needs better reading comprehension, or better writing skills, but what he reads/writes is not in agreement with Joe Cupertino's post.


In summary, if De Lugo agrees with Joe Cupertino's post, then Ladislaus would also agree.  So 90% of this thread is a misunderstanding.

Oh la la!

The only question is: Do I allow M. Cupertino to break it to him, or do I do the honors?

NB: I see Joe Cupertino is online now. 

 

So there's no confusion, what I posted was about the theory of the school of Catharinus, which is virtually condemned, as De Salvo says on p.105

I highly recommend this book, available to read online here:
The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (1949) - Rev. De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.D.

Pax-

What was that you were saying about reading comprehension?

Your declaration that everything Joe Cupertino posted (i.e., the condemned theory of Catharinus) lines up perfectly with M. Ladislaus is most certainly correct!

This is a complex issue and I admit i'm not an expert.  But riddle-me-this, batman, how can an atheist baptize validly, (they certainly do NOT have any proper intention), but yet a mason priest's baptism ceremony must be examined?

This makes no sense.  In the True Rite, the Church makes the form VERY clear, so that anyone/priest that follows it, is doing "what the Church does".  If it's any more complex than this, then Catholicism is one big doubt-burger.

When the correct mater and form are used, the proper intention is *always* presumed. Unless the administrator of the sacrament specifically states that he did not intend to do what the Church does, it is *always* presumed that he did have the proper intention and the sacrament is to be considered valid.

1000% agree.  But De Lugo is arguing against this, which makes no sense.  He's complicating it.

Completely false.

It was I who started the thread, who's primary conclusion is that there's no sound reason to doubt the validity of Msgr. Lefebvre's episcopal consecration or priestly ordination (which like all consecrations and sacraments, are morally, but never infallibly, certain).

I was later bound to point out that, despite this, and contrary to the condemned position of Catharinus and Ladislaus, it is not true that the intention of the minister is certainly valid simply because he performs a rite (i.e., the condemned theory of external intention).

We presume validity in such cases, but that presumption would not be in conformity with realiy, if the minister has formed a covert contrary intention to not do what the Church does (thereby deliberately omitting a criterion defined at Trent).

This should not cause insecurity to anyone, because the power and grace of God are not constrained to the sacraments, and it is certainly not sentimental, therefore, to believe that, should we ever be so unfortunate to come under the power of wicked ministers, God would not fail to transmit grace outside the sacraments (as the quote from l' Abbe Hunter describes).

Pretty sure that no one here thought to feel insecure about +ABL's consecration, despite your views and this dumb thread.

Except for:

1) You, who accused me of starting this thread to undermine confidence in Msgr. Lefebvre's ordination;

2) Pax Vobis, who a few posts prior accused my articulation of the Church's teaching of throwing everything into one big "doubt burger;"

3) M. Ladislaus, who rejected the explanation of Fr. Hunter, and declared that were he correct, everyone should feel insecure about the validity of their sacraments.

You most definitely feel insecure, which, in the absence of any doctrinal argument since the beginning of this thread, explains the irrational and emotional nature of all your posts.

Bonsoir!